On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 06:35:38PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 08:20:17AM -0400, Keyur Patel wrote:
> > Added missing logging statement when kfifo_alloc fails, to improve
> > debugging.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Keyur Patel <iamkeyur96@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/greybus/uart.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/uart.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/uart.c
> > index b3bffe91ae99..86a395ae177d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/uart.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/uart.c
> > @@ -856,8 +856,10 @@ static int gb_uart_probe(struct gbphy_device *gbphy_dev,
> >
> > retval = kfifo_alloc(&gb_tty->write_fifo, GB_UART_WRITE_FIFO_SIZE,
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (retval)
> > + if (retval) {
> > + pr_err("kfifo_alloc failed\n");
> > goto exit_buf_free;
> > + }
>
> You should have already gotten an error message from the log if this
> fails, from the kmalloc_array() call failing, right?
>
> So why is this needed? We have been trying to remove these types of
> messages and keep them in the "root" place where the failure happens.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Didn't notice that. I agree that this will result only into redundancy.
Quick look over files reveal that there are multiple places
where people are using print statements after memory allocation fails.
Should I go ahead and send patches to remove those
redundant print statements?
Sorry, if you're receiving this message again.
Thnaks.
Keyur Patel
_______________________________________________
greybus-dev mailing list
greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|